on deck batter

[coach g]

One of my ex-house league players was on-deck and after our batter reached 1B on an infield hit, the overthrow came near him. so he picked it up and tossed it to the pitcher. By this time, the runner from 3B had already scored. So the pitcher complains to the ump that the on-deck hitter touched a live ball, even though the play was essentially over.

The ump ruled the batter out and the runner must return to 3B, taking a run off the board. There was 1 out at the time this happened.

How badly did the umpire botch this play?

[jicecone]

Well considering this was a house league, I am sure a MLB umpire was not doing the game. Digressing from there, the umpires decision was properly directly proportional to his experience.

Based upon my overall evauluation and assesment of a situation that one would have had to been there to opine upon, and the fact that I refuse to rip apart up and coming umpires.

I can't help you, sorry.

[UmpJM]

coach g,

How did the coaches respond to this sequence of events?

JM

[JJ]

Botched? Hmmmm....the on deck guy picked up a live ball with a runner still on base, so the play WASN'T over. Hopefully the on deck guy learned to leave the ball alone.
You didn't say in the OP where the original throw was headed on the "infield hit". Was the defense making a play at the plate on a runner from third? Or were they making a play in the batter-runner at first? Since it was an overthrow, was the batter-runner trying to advance? Did the runner from third advance on the hit, or on the overthrow?
Details, man. It's all about ALL the details.

Sorry, coach. Until all the details are posted, it's hard to render a decision.

JJ

[UmpTTS43]

At the time of INT, runner had already scored and batter runner at first. Kill the play, score the run, leave runner on first and tell the on deck guy not to do it again.

[coach g]

the throw was wild to first. It had ended up in the on-deck circle and I called him over to tell him something. Next thing I know, the ball comes toward him and he picks it up. The runner at first was not trying to advance. The runner from 3rd scored as the ball was hit to the SS.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

At the time of INT, runner had already scored and batter runner at first. Kill the play, score the run, leave runner on first and tell the on deck guy not to do it again.

Given the additional info, +1

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

At the time of INT, runner had already scored and batter runner at first. Kill the play, score the run, leave runner on first and tell the on deck guy not to do it again.

Hmmmm...... Are we calling INTERFERENCE? Because if we do, shouldn't we be getting an out also?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

Hmmmm...... Are we calling INTERFERENCE? Because if we do, shouldn't we be getting an out also?

It's offensive teammate interference without a play. The ball is dead, and the umpires will place the runners.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

coach g,

How did the coaches respond to this sequence of events?

JM

I'd still like to see this question answered.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by mbyron

It's offensive teammate interference without a play. The ball is dead, and the umpires will place the runners.

I agree therefore the question. People will tend to call interference for this play and that requires an out. Hence, the point I am trying to make especially for the amount of rookies that are on this forum now.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

I agree therefore the question. People will tend to call interference for this play and that requires an out. Hence, the point I am trying to make especially for the amount of rookies that are on this forum now.

You're not listening, oz. Interference without a play does not involve assessing an out.

From J/R, ch. 13, sect. VI:
With bases loaded a pitch eludes the catcher and rolls toward the on-deck batter. The runners each advance one base as the catcher pursues the ball. However, the on-deck batter reaches down and pick[s] up the live ball before the catcher can get to it: interference without a play being made. The ball is dead and the runners are restricted to their one-base advance.

[coach g]

the coaches, including me, were quiet. I knew the umps (kids) had not seen this play before and were making it up even though they consulted each other.

I think the consensus is since the play was essentially over, the ball should have been declared dead and the runner should not have been sent back to 3B. And I should have protested the game at that point. That way we could have re-started the game from there. But who wants to do that?

Thanks for the input.

[UmpJM]

coach g,

Thanks for answering my question.

As described, personally I'm impressed.

FWIW, I concur with mbyron & ozzy (who I believe are in "violent agreement") that a more proper call would have been (weak) "interference without a play" - kill it, put everyone where he is, mildly admonish the on-deck guy, reset and put the ball back in play.

JM

[DG]

Originally Posted by mbyron

given the additional info, +1

+2